Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feedforward neural network is one of the most commonly used function approximation techniques and has been applied to a wide variety of problems arising from various disciplines. However, neural networks are black-box models having multiple challenges/difficulties associated with training and generalization. This paper initially looks into the internal behavior of neural networks and develops a detailed interpretation of the neural network functional geometry. Based on this geometrical interpretation, a new set of variables describing neural networks is proposed as a more effective and geometrically interpretable alternative to the traditional set of network weights and biases. Then, this paper develops a new formulation for neural networks with respect to the newly defined variables; this reformulated neural network (ReNN) is equivalent to the common feedforward neural network but has a less complex error response surface. To demonstrate the learning ability of ReNN, in this paper, two training methods involving a derivative-based (a variation of backpropagation) and a derivative-free optimization algorithms are employed. Moreover, a new measure of regularization on the basis of the developed geometrical interpretation is proposed to evaluate and improve the generalization ability of neural networks. The value of the proposed geometrical interpretation, the ReNN approach, and the new regularization measure are demonstrated across multiple test problems. Results show that ReNN can be trained more effectively and efficiently compared to the common neural networks and the proposed regularization measure is an effective indicator of how a network would perform in terms of generalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".